D&D General On Social Mechanics of Various Sorts

[Yaarel]

Intimidation is an appropriate skill to combat fears, to maintain owns own confidence and presence.

I am trying to get into the habit of using Intimidation for a "morale check", once an NPC becomes bloodied.

 

[iserith]

Intimidation is an appropriate skill to combat fears, to maintain owns own confidence and presence.

I am trying to get into the habit of using Intimidation for a "morale check", once an NPC becomes bloodied.

For certain adventures and campaigns, I just write Morale as a trait on the monster stat block: "If the swamp snake is reduced to half its hit points or fewer, it flees if able..." Players learn this over time and they start altering their tactics to just knock them to half then focus on another one (for example).

 

[Yaarel]

For certain adventures and campaigns, I just write Morale as a trait on the monster stat block: "If the swamp snake is reduced to half its hit points or fewer, it flees if able..." Players learn this over time and they start altering their tactics to just knock them to half then focus on another one (for example).

I am big fan of the Bloodied condition ("half its hit points or fewer").

Especially for urban and modern settings, it can be crucial to win a combat encounter without actually killing the opponent. (And when dealing with wild animals, I feel bad about killing them.)

The Bloodied condition, with Morale, is a useful mechanic toward achieving nonlethal resolutions.

 

[NotAYakk]

I want something mechanical to hang player connections / contacts in the world off of.

Something like:

Like, you can maintain up to (proficiency bonus plus charisma bonus) allies. These get written down on your character sheet. An ally is someone you can reasonably expect to help you out.

Allies, in turn, have "levels". Do something for an ally, their connect to you can "level up". You add your alliance level to checks involving that ally.

As a DM, I am allowed to kill said ally, or threaten the connection. Too bad, so sad. I'm even allowed to turn an ally into a heel in a face-heel-turn (but then you get your slot back).

And you don't get an ally for free. You can ask to try to make someone you did something to an ally, or the DM can do it. Typically this will involve an attribute check (that might not be charisma based!) or some other chance of failure.

Simple, grounds the players in the world, and ideally makes them possessive of said allies as assets.

Collecting more powerful allies, or boosting the power of your allies, becomes something you can do.

You can even, for comic effect, have some (comically incompetent) NPC desperate to become one of your PCs allies, and help out as best they can if they become said ally.

Players can start the game with a +2 ally from their background, and maybe one from one of their personality traits (like your bonds).

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't know if this is the best way to do it, but it's the way I do social interactions at my table.

• The player decides what their character says to the NPC. Might give Advantage/Disadvantage on the Charisma check if it's something the NPC wants to hear, or how seriously the player commits to the monologue, how believable it is, another player vouches for him, or whatever.
• The character sheet decides how well the character says it. This is modeled by a Charisma (Persuasion, etc.) bonus.
• The dice decide how the NPC reacts to it. The player rolls against the NPCs passive Insight (or whatever)
• I decide what the NPC says/does, based on how close the Charisma check got to that target.

 

[Shiroiken]

To use the scale, I'm probably about a 7. In general social situations start as roleplay (including 3rd person perspective) until a decision point needs to be made. If it's the players, I ask for an insight check to potentially give them information necessary to make the decision. If it's an NPC, I ask for a Cha (Deception, Intimidation, Persuasion) check to help determine the effect on the NPC's attitude. While direct roleplay is never required, it's usually very helpful to steer the conversation in the direction the players want. Actual roleplay skill in no way affects the DC, only the possible decisions for the NPC.

I'm a big fan of this approach, so kudos from me to you. It's hard, because it's very easy to think you should reward the rich descriptions, entertaining performances, etc. On the one hand, doing so could motivate the less socially gregarious types to up their game, but I also don't want to create a situation where only very socially gregarious, confident people are welcome at the table.

Other than inspiration (which I'm not particularly fond of), the best method is to add XP to the session total. I include xp for traps, hazards, tricks, social encounters, and even quest completion for my game, so this fits right in. Note this shouldn't be individual xp, as that hurts shy players who are uncomfortable with direct roleplay.

 

[Umbran]

You are being intentionally obtuse.

Mod Note:
You read minds over the internet, such that you know the intent of other posters? That's a rhetorical question.

How about you not make it personal - if you feel someone is not speaking in good faith, try not engaging with them, instead of making nasty comments about your presumptions of their intent, please and thanks.

 

[overgeeked]

I use the same framework as I do for all skill checks, that I developed kinda by accident.

The player clearly and openly states their:

• Goal: I want to negotiate a better payday
• Method (which, in social interactions, mostly means leverage): I want to negotiate a better payday by emphasizing cold facts -- it's a very risky operation, and while we're friends, I don't want to freaking die for 500 gold pieces the fact that it's a very risky operation, and despite the fact that we're friends, I don't want to freaking die for her
• Ability and Skill: I want to Persuade her for a better payday by Intelligently emphasizing the cold facts -- it's a very risky operation, and while we're friends, I don't want to freaking die for 500 gold pieces

The GM then clearly and openly states:

• Requirements (what the character needs to do before even making an attempt): in this case, I didn't have any, but if the PC wasn't the NPC's friend, I'd say he needs someone to wouch for him.
• Risk (what will happen on a failure, always something more than "status quo remains"): Ok, I tell you what. If you fail, she will take her business to your competitors. Yeah, you're her friend, but she doesn't want to freaking starve for you...
• Reward (what will happen on a success?): ...but if you succeed, she will double the pay.
• Price (what will happen regardless of the result): She won't be happy, though. I'll start a 6 segment clock "Sarah is fed up by your crap", and mark 2. When it fills, you will be demoted to a mere business partner.

Then I call for a roll with static DC -- 1-10: fail, 11-17: both risk and reward happen, 18+: it's all good.

I don't know if this is the best way to do it, but it's the way I do social interactions at my table.

• The player decides what their character says to the NPC. Might give Advantage/Disadvantage on the Charisma check if it's something the NPC wants to hear, or how seriously the player commits to the monologue, how believable it is, another player vouches for him, or whatever.
• The character sheet decides how well the character says it. This is modeled by a Charisma (Persuasion, etc.) bonus.
• The dice decide how the NPC reacts to it. The player rolls against the NPCs passive Insight (or whatever)
• I decide what the NPC says/does, based on how close the Charisma check got to that target.

I’m so stealing these.

 

[Azuresun]

I prefer these kinds of things to stay under the hood. I dont want players making character choices that are expedient, but at the cost of an NPCs favor, only to gain it back by gifting an equal number of points that is understood via metagaming. Its sort of why I stopped using XP, my players do things mechanically that will give them the best outcomes as opposed to doing things that feel organic to the character.

I do like faction level systems though. If your characters have been a thorn in the side of the city watch, they are not likely to be friendly. I find that sort of thing to be helpful, especially when starting from a strangers relationship point.

Exalted second edition springs to mind as an example of how an optimising mindset can go awfully, hilariously wrong when applied to a social system. The optimised way of talking to someone by RAW was to tie them to a chair so they couldn't run away and pelt them with absurd requests you knew they'd never accept until they ran out of willpower resisting, at which point they would become your helpless puppet and do absolutely anything you asked. And this was before you added social magic powers into the mix! The best defence against this was to punch everyone in the face as soon as they started talking to you.

 

[Shardstone]

D&D 5e Social Encounter Statblocks: How to Run NPCs Like a Pro – Flutes Loot

Learn to create social encounter statblocks to consolidate your notes and simplify your NPC roleplaying in D&D 5e.

www.flutesloot.com

How do you guys feel about this? Makes more prep, but man it sounds like a fun way to run a social encounter.